What a silly statement. Try reading some history. The term "ID" probably wasn't in use, but the concept certainly, and it meant exactly what it means today. It was the standard model of life, the universe and everything. It was specifically what "Origin of Species" was written to argue against.
And the gaps in the fossil record. I do not see where these fossils "fit as expected into a time and structure line." That is a false statement. Where is the evidence for that? Where are all of those transitional intermediate forms - there should be billions of them.
Try arguing against what I said, not what you imagine I said.
You think evolution is science, then you won't have any trouble explaining to me how information is added to the genome in the molecule-to-man process; or how the first protein molecule self-assembled. I'm still waiting for someone, anyone (in the world!) to explain these to me in the form of scientific evidence.
If you can tell me how an "information scientist" can read a genome and predict what will emerge from it and whether it will successfully reproduce, then I will accept the information paradigm. Otherwise I will assert that what you are calling information is a byproduct of selection.
I have a degree in history. I have read plenty. And I can state unequivocally that "ID" was not a term or concept that was in use in 1700! The model in 1700 was CREATIONISM. Period. ID is simply a new way of touting creationism without mentioning the threatening and menacing word, "GOD," because people like you soil yourselves when you hear it.